Friday, April 9, 2010

Paul Melcher, over at Thoughts of a Bohemian, writes about the salaries of staffers of Getty and Corbis in this article, and I strongly encourage you to read what your "support staff" is getting paid, if you work for one of those companies. Moreover, if the "support staff" for a photo organization gets paid over $100k, for example, shouldn't the talented photographers who are actually creating the stuff that is being sold (and thus, needs support!) should be getting paid more?!?!

(Continued after the Jump)

As of right now, there are 330 jobs listed on Monster.com for "photographer" here, including staff photographer jobs for Diapers.com (here), and Amazon.com (here), but what I just don't see is Monster.com (or any other service for that matter) listing photographer jobs for the staff positions at Getty and Corbis, because they likely pull from their contractors, or get photographers via world-of-mouth. Would it ever be that a support staffer for a major sports league get paid more than the players on the field that are in the game? Why isn't this same mentality applied to the creative talents of staffers at Getty and Corbis?

Thursday, April 8, 2010

"The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), joined by the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback, has filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York", reads the first paragraph of the press release.

These organizations "decided to file the class action after the Court denied their request to join the currently pending $125 million class action that had previously been filed primarily on behalf of text authors in connection with the Google Library Project. The new class action goes beyond Google’s Library Project, and includes Google’s other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists."

I will say that I was concerned that photographers had been excluded from the class action suit in connection with the Google Library Project, but at the same time, I am glad that the photo trade organizations have the wherewithal and mettle to pursue this, since nothing less than the future of image valuation is at stake. Further, this suit can learn from the mistakes (if any) from the first class action suit, and also possibly ride on the coattails of that decision.

I commend these trade organizations for taking a stand on this important issue. Yahoo News reports on it here, and we reported on the book scanning technology that is being used here, which included a number of links to Google's patents and other related stories on this subject.

(The full release, after the Jump)

The full release:

The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP), joined by the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America, photographers Leif Skoogfors, Al Satterwhite, Morton Beebe, Ed Kashi and illustrators John Schmelzer and Simms Taback, has filed a class action copyright infringement suit against Google, Inc. in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York. The suit, which was filed by Mishcon de Reya New York LLP, relates to Google’s illegal scanning of millions of books and other publications containing copyrighted images and displaying them to the public without regard to the rights of the visual creators. ASMP and the other trade associations, representing thousands of members, decided to file the class action after the Court denied their request to join the currently pending $125 million class action that had previously been filed primarily on behalf of text authors in connection with the Google Library Project. The new class action goes beyond Google’s Library Project, and includes Google’s other systematic and pervasive infringements of the rights of photographers, illustrators and other visual artists.

This action by ASMP and its sister organizations was taken in order to protect the interests of owners of copyrights in visual works from the massive and organized copying and public display of their images without regard to their contributions and rights to fair compensation. According to ASMP Executive Director Eugene Mopsik, “Through this suit, we are fulfilling the missions of our organizations and standing up for the rights of photographers and other visual artists who have been excluded from the process up to now. We strongly believe that our members and those of other organizations, whose livelihoods are significantly and negatively impacted, deserve to have representation in this landmark issue.” ASMP General Counsel Victor Perlman said, “We are seeking justice and fair compensation for visual artists whose work appears in the twelve million books and other publications Google has illegally scanned to date. In doing so, we are giving voice to thousands of disenfranchised creators of visual artworks whose rights we hope to enforce through this class action.”

Founded in 1944, ASMP is the premier trade association for the world’s most respected photographers. ASMP is the leader in promoting photographers’ rights, providing education in better business practices, producing business publications for photographers, and helping to connect purchasers with professional photographers. ASMP has 39 chapters across the country and its 7,000 members include many of the world’s foremost photographers. More information is available at http://asmp.org.

The Graphic Artists Guild is a national artists union that embraces creators at all levels of skill and expertise, who create art intended for presentation as originals or reproductions. The mission of the Guild is to promote and protect the economic interests of its members, to improve conditions for all creators, and to raise standards for the entire industry. Its core purpose is to be a strong community that empowers and enriches its members through collective action. More information at http://www.graphicartistsguild.org.

Founded in 1951, PACA, the Picture Archive Council of America, represents the vital interests of image archives of every size, from individual photographers to large corporations, who license images for commercial reproduction. PACA leads advocacy, education, and communication efforts on copyright and standard business practices that affect the image licensing industry. More information at http://www.pacaoffice.org.

NANPA, the North American Nature Photography Association, is the first and premiere association in North America committed solely to serving the field of nature photography. More information at http://www.nanpa.org.

PPA, the Professional Photographers of America is the world’s largest not-for-profit association for professional photographers, with more than 20,000 members in 54 countries. The association seeks to increase its members’ business savvy as well as broaden their creative scope and is a leader in the dissemination of knowledge in the areas of professional business practices and creative image-making. More information at http://www.ppa.com.

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

So it seems, somehow, Photo Business News in the last 24 hours or so, got hacked. I am seeing it fine here on my end, and others are as well - so perhaps the cached version of the hacker site is de-populating from servers around the world - I apologize for the hack and the good folks at Google have graciously agreed to look into what happened.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

As someone who has been overseas (albeit not in a bonafide war zone) and had my life at risk by thugs at gunpoint (once), seeing video of the actual death of a photographer turns my stomach and should make you realize just how dangerous being a photojournalist is these days.

(Continued after the Jump)

Photojournalists risk their lives everyday, around the world, to bring back the news. When they are employees of a company, they have the full support of the organization they work for, including medical, (sometimes mental health coverage), disability, and life insurance, not to mention coverage for all their equipment.

When a news organization hires a freelancer, and pays them a few hundred dollars for the day (usually not enough to cover the rental charges on the gear they would bring to an assignment, let alone their talent) the freelancer is responsible for their health, disability, and life insurance protections. According to WikiLeaks who broke this story (and PDN here), the photographer and driver were Reuters employees.

As a freelance photographer, whomever you work for, make damn sure that you have full medical/disability/life insurances, because while you are likely to not be shot from a helicopter, you could crash on the interstate, and you need to be able to get on with your life - and value it.